Why does he always say "I want to be clear"? If you want to be clear, maybe you should just say what you really think. Maybe he should say, "We're pushing financial reform because I begrudge your success and think you've already made enough money. In fact, I want to redistribute your money to those who do not have your work ethic and smarts. I read 'Harrrison Bergeron' as a kid growing up in ((... single mother... helping hand...)) and I really think we all can be ballerinas or wall street bankers if we lower the common denominator enough. Now is the time for action and change."

Let me be clear, I'm not bullshittin' ya, uh uh uh, but you are makin' enough money out there.

Maybe I can too have someone write two fucking autobiographies for me and then make 5 million off it, via the PR campaign paid for by the US media.

And maybe if I were able to push a bullshit idea like global warming, and con people, or not con them and actually work with them, into stupid exchanges where the only thing that's exchanged is dupes money. And again, I would have the full push from a PR campaign by the US media.

Then maybe I'd be able to make so much money that I can afford a few mutli-million dollar houses.

As soon as I read this in the news, I knew it was going to go viral. I HOPE it helps people see what he is all about. He KEEPS SAYING exactly what he means but people do not want to believe it. He SAID he wanted to 'spread the wealth around' - but people somehow filter it into something more appealing because they want to believe.

I don't want to be all Alpha Liberal or anything, but I actually would like to see the greater context of the quote (couldn't watch the video, if it's there). Could he have just been talking about personally, or a societal/cultural thing? I doubt it, and it certainly fits with everything else he's said and done, but I'd like to see how he followed that statement for more clarification about what he was specifically referring to and if he gave any indications of what "enough" means. - Lyssa

"Goldman is NOT being thrown under the bus. This is a rope-a-dope scam and Goldman is in on it. A politically divided SEC has brought a very weak case that will never see a court room. It will be settled with a wrist-slap. In return for being made the whipping boy — which Goldman is very used to and even thrives on — it will get a "regulation" bill that enshrines too-big-to-fail status upon it and which will give it the same competitive advantages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoyed. That is, an implicit taxpayer guarantee. It will then be able to borrow at lower rates and engage in riskier behavior at a lower cost. Meanwhile, smaller competitors will not enjoy this advantage, thereby making Goldman even more powerful and profitable.

Don't buy the spin on this. Obama is not throwing Goldman under the bus. Goldman willingly jumped and will receive a huge payoff for its "sacrifice." But the rest of us will pay. This is all a political scam from start to finish."

The longer quote is even worse, um, as he talks around, ah, the fact that we do want to let people, um, continue to make even more money if, you know, they're providing a good product or good service and are fulfilling, um, their responsibility of building our economy.

"We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

Not sure how you think that makes him look any better, Montaigne. Sounds to me like an admission that Obama can't stop that...yet. He certainly doesn't seem to understand the mindset of people who take that route.

As for the "personal limit to greed" thing, we don't think much of it when it's coming from the President of the United States, no. Funny how when the government tries to put those limits on people that it makes exceptions for those who suck up to it. (Of course, to say that "people make too much money because they're greedy" is a moral position. Is there then no outcry about imposing personal morality on others?)

So for conservatives, it's heresy to even express the personal opinion that there should be some kind of limit to greed, even while allowing it's "the american way" for there not to be.

Greed and wealth are not the same thing.

I know plenty of greedy people who have nothing and plenty of wealthy people who are content and generous with their financial resources. There should be no limit to wealth; that's how the capitalist makes the pie bigger and elevates the standard of living for himself and others.

For those who would defend the President's remark, I would ask the simple question, "What is the dollar amount to which people should be limited to possess?" I'll guarantee not one would answer with a number close to their net worth.

"So they failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child’s college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what’s working fine for them wasn’t working for ordinary Americans. And we’ve learned that clearly. It doesn’t work out fine for the country. It’s got to change. (Applause.)

Now, what we’re doing -- I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."

It does apear a bit sound bitish and if Repubs were smart (which they aren't), they'd use it to maximum effect. I think someone else is spot on with the observation that it's definitely a gaffe and one where he's saying what he's actually thinking.

It's all couched in qualifier words that make it about service to some greater good. He doesn't say that we need a financial sector that is healthy and strong and profitable. It's not an unavoidable economic principle so much as an American habit of making more money than you need, which is okay if distasteful, because the "good" sort helps to grow the economy.

Since it only "helps" to grow the economy... I wonder what else he thinks contributes or what he thinks is central to growing the economy.

The question remains, though, if the weasel words reveal his actual beliefs about what he says or if they are just a habit.

It's not about the money they've "made," but the money they've stolen and cheated away from others.

Obama is so much in the pockets of these swine he can't even say the word fraud when discussing the real causes of our national and global financial meltdown (cheating and double dealing by the financial industry) and the consequent need for stringent financial reform and regulation of Wall Street.

Synova- thanks for providing the context. I think that GS provided a "good product and services" by helping fuel the growth of people's retirement investments, "fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy." The bubble crashed. Other bubbles have crashed. The "education bubble" may crash.

In fact, for future tax revenue purposes, the President is relying on GS to do their thing again.

We're talking about bankers here. They make too much money. The financial sector produces fake wealth. It's led to no real economic progress. While the bankers' salaries were skyrocketing in the 2000s, real wages were stagnant.

But go ahead and keep defending the brave bankers and all they've done for society. Suckers. I'm sure Obama, who is socialist and in bed with Goldman Sachs at the same time somehow, will eventually be defeated by all the Ayn Randian army of Davids that you are. Finally, bankers will be allowed to safely earn their well deserved bonuses for pushing numbers from their asses, which is a great service that benefits all the small boats in its rising tide.

I call bullshit on Obama until he holds the lobby, entertainment and professional sports industries to the same standards as Wall Street.

Ticket prices have placed most sports arenas out of reach for the average family and movie theaters are close behind. How much is too much for the NFL or MLB owners and players? Tiger Woods earned a billion in endorsements. Apparently Obama doesn't consider that excessive.

How much profit do NBC-Universal,Time-Warner, Sony or Disney need? Or Oprah and her multi-billon dollar money machine? How about the $40 mil a movie deals? Does George Clooney need $300 mil in assets to get through his day?

Then there's the K Street/govt revolving door ATM. I'll pass on Al Gore as a prime example as we've already beaten that horse on another post.

Compare an Obama commentary to a Bush commentary. Not some cherry picked gaffe, which both made plenty of, but just a plain comment off the teleprompter. Bush had at least 30 IQ points on this idiot. I guess that's why the actual president keeps Obama, the actor president, on the links all the time.

He's a bigger boob than Joe Biden. Just look at this stupid statement. It doesn't even help his case once you decipher it.

Here here. I myself don't begrudge pro athletes or entertainers whatever they are paid. If their paycheck does not bounce, they earned the money IMO.

Obama would not have the balls to say these things to the high paid media elites at the WH Correspondents dinner this week. I.E. what does Katie Couric make $15 Million a year. God bless her dumb perky little ass because who is any president to say "enough is enough"?

Obama just can't understand that most people earned what they have- he thinks the game is rigged.

Montagne Montaigne: I'm sure Obama, who is socialist and in bed with Goldman Sachs at the same time somehow...

Let me help you with that. Before claiming that America doesn't fit the definition of "neo-mercantilist," just consider that the exports we're trying to protect are multi-national corporations and, especially of interest to the Goldman Sachses of the world, our international reserve currency.

Riiiiight, because the real estate and mortgage industries - which are heavily ahhh, how shall I say...influenced...by the government, who encouraged through legislation the creation of toxic assets upon which the "financial industry" based their derivatives - had such an insignificant part in all of it.

A good way to revolt and get back at Obama for these truly revolting and disgusting words is too send these bankers some of your hard earned money, to go along with the hard earned money you already gave them, that they already stole from you. And make a sternly worded sign. I'm angry!

That's a pretty stupid statement, even for you. What is the alternative to having a "financial sector" in the capitalist system?

How bout we get back to making things in this country?

Great. But how do we decide what to make? The financial sector is the mechanism that allocates capital to the industries that "make things". How would you do it? Five-Year Plans for tractor production developed by some Department of Agriculture bureaucrat in DC?

"The financial sector is not a healthy part of the capitalist system. It's more like an out of control tumorous growth."

In that case, if they pack up and move house, it's a good thing, right?

"When fraud and idiotic practices from the entertainment or sports industries require a massive taxpayer-funded bailout "or else," then I'll be all for regulating them."

We'll ignore, for the moment, just how thoroughly sports and entertainment are regulated to point out...

A whole freaking heck of a lot of us opposed the taxpayer-funded bailout of *anyone*. This opposition to bail-outs pretty much spawned the Tea Party movement.

Removing the natural consequences for screwing the pooch, however, is not corrected by imposing unnatural consequences. The most likely thing to happen is that the pooch gets screwed twice. We can hope, if we are optimistic, that the second screwing is on the gentle side.

And still, none of that changes the essential moral statement made by our President, that there is something unseemly about making too much money.

"We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.

Those are clearly linked together, that’s the first thing he thought of to say after trying to say it’s not about people making too much money. The rest of the quote doesn’t fix that.

Greed and wealth are not the same thing.

Exactly! If you start a store, or make a product, or write a book…you may have had a good idea or good business sense and manage to end up with a hell of a lot of money. That doesn’t make you anything you weren’t before when you had nothing.

Individuals have indeed made obscene amounts of money from what does not appear to be efforts "deserving" that kind of compensation - and that includes some government, or semi-government, officials - but I think that is more symptoms that something is wrong with the finacial system Congress has designed and constructed than a cause of the ills.

Whenever Obama goes off script, he sounds like a college sophomore, and college sophomores have not changed much in the last 100-150 years. I think this has to do with youth, idealism, and inexperience, which is fine in college sophomores, but is disturbing in a 50-year old who is also President of the United States.

This is a bit like a 12-year old out on the street with a loaded shotgun with a hair trigger.

Obama is simply using a populist rhetoric, which most everyone thinks or feels about 'the rich'. Including teabaggers. Especially with regards to those on Wall Street who get bonueses after a federal bailout. His sentiment is a sentiment I have heard very often from regular folks.

You know when a CEO makes so much more than their workers and then the CEO terminates those workers to 'save' money you expect people to be angry.

When Thomas Montag, president of global banking at B of A, received $30 million after the bank received received $45 billion in federal funds then it does make you wonder.

@garage:A good way to revolt and get back at Obama for these truly revolting and disgusting words is too send these bankers some of your hard earned money ...

Well, if they're getting taxpayer-funded bailouts, sure, why not put these guys on the federal payroll? Their salary maxes out at GS-15 around 130K a year. I'm sure these guys would love working 9-5 and getting all the holidays off.

I don't how that fixes anything, but sure, why not?

These investment houses should have never gotten as big as they did, where they couldn't be liquidated as needed without a massive hit to the economy. Yeah, that requires regulation -- It also requires regulators who aren't at the office watching porn all day.

@Montagne:the bailout was initiated under Bush, but you wouldn't know that from the T.E.A. signs

The Tea Party stuff is directed at who is in charge now. I guess you could go picket Bush's home in Crawford, Tx, but I don't think that will do any good.

As far as Republicans go: as has been reported, the Republicans who have gone along with the bailouts don't get any slack from Tea Partiers either. What's motivated the Tea Party now is:(1) Federal spending exploding after Obama's inauguration.(2) The inevitability of higher taxes to pay for it all.

Anyway, I don't recall the anti-war activists who called for Bush & Cheney to be prosecuted as war criminals a few years back, also calling for Bill Clinton to be tried as a war criminal for bombing Iraq in 1998.

Also, at a certain point (to be decided by Obama and his Czars), you will have eaten enough of your share of food, purchased enough household goods, used enough of your allotment of energy and gasoline and have enough clothing. No one should have more than their allotment, unless you are amongst the elites, who are above being rationed.

The amount of medical care you are allowed to have should not exceed a set amount....to be determined by your betters.

And you'd better believe that the amounts that you are to be allowed as enough for you will be a constantly moving target.

Nice world. Do you want to live in Obama's version of Animal Farm? I certainly don't.

Please Mr. Government, at long last, define this number. How much in a year is rich? And remember, no government employee will be allowed to earn that much from the taxpayers, because we're not going to allow someone to get rich off the public. How much is rich?

If the Tea Partiers had a coherent idea of what they're het up about, they'd be demanding we withdraw immediately and completely from our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places yet unrevealed, given the trillions we've already squandered there so far to no purpose other than destruction and death, and the billions we're continuing to squander there each month.

They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money.

And Obama the econo-idiot seems to think that if you make TOO much money, it means that you are taking money AWAY from someone else--rather than creating more wealth and more economic activity.

This is one of the fruits of affirmative action--This guy did badly in college, probably never learned any economics, got into Harvard Law on the basis of his skin color, where he did quite well. And so he emerges with the reputation of being an intellectual, but he drugged his way through his undergraduate education and now sort of knows nothing (other than how to play race cards and identity politics).

Imagine if you were his roommate at Columbia, and he smoked dope and did blow and got lousy grades and he got into Harvard Law and you had better grades but a white skin and didn't. And imagine how committed Obama would have to be to the "justice" of affirmative action in order to justify to himself such an unfair result. And that would then justify taking anything away from anybody in the name of equality.

Robert Cook said"They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money."

That is true. They feel exactly the way you do. You want to waste money on the lazy and unproductive members of society who don't want to pull their weight. You know the desperate poor who have $500 sneakers, plasma TV's, I-pods and Escalades.

"They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money."

Cook, you hit the nail on the head here. Most of us decide what is good or bad based on our personal circumstances. What will happen when the first fiscally conservative candidate suggests means testing for Social Security? Just for the heck of it, suggest it to a few friends who are over fifty and watch for their reactions. It's enlightening.

I love this: A group of tea bagging wing nuts, who just got a tax cut from President Obama...defending the top 1% of the population and the major corporations...because you think all is well with the economy, and these people and companies need to make as much as they can.

And as for major corporations like Exxon, not paying a fucking dime in taxes, that's okay, too.

"Cause it'll ALL eventually "trickle down" to the rest of the population.

@Jeremy:And as for major corporations like Exxon, not paying a fucking dime in taxes, that's okay, too.

No, that's not OK. It's an argument for simplifying the tax code. I think on this issue we're talking past each other.

Simplify the tax code, so that multi-nationals will leave their money here in the U.S. and pay taxes on it. Now, they find the lowest tax haven and use every legal means they can to avoid paying taxes here.

That may require lowering the corporate income tax rate, but if they're shifting it overseas legally to avoid the taxes, how do you come out ahead?

I don't understand, Democrats are in charge, why aren't they taking care of this?

"Corporations are not evil but they are not perfect entities either. Government is not evil but it is not perfect either."

In the ten year period between 1999 and 2009, nearly half of the companies of the Fortune 500 had fallen off that list. Businesses that cease to self correct will not be around very long.

On the other hand, there's Government, which has no incentive to self correct whatsoever. Yesterday's mistakes don't have them go out of business. The cost of those mistakes are passed on to the taxpayers, and when that isn't enough money to get by, they print more money.

Both bad? Then I'll bet on the one that can create wealth. The Government does not create wealth.

A beast unleashed, my email is flooded with comments. May I dream or die trying, may I make money to my hearts content. Who are YOU to tell me otherwise? You not seek to make money, do so to your hearts content; leave my heart alone.

eve said...Are you talking about those crappy tiny checks that got sent out last year.

I recall Bush sent out crappy little checks and you probably didn't complain about those. I also know Obama changed the Pub. 15 Federal deduction for those making less than 100k or so - and I'm sure you spent that.

If you are talking about the Marginal Tax codes you should know Obama has proposed 39.6%, which is lower than the avg. it was under Reagan.

Well I see you and Obama both like to drill. Nice to see you agree with out president. Now, maybe do what any thriving entrepreneur should do and consider investing in alternative fuels and different ways of transit because we won't have oil forever.

I would love to see the audit on Obama's doubled book royalties this past year. I would ask two questions: (1) Was there any change in the royalty rate? (2) Was there any person or organization buying the books in quantities who might want to curry favor with Obama.

Now it's entirely possible--perhaps even likely--that there was a great surge in sales of his books in 2009. But given the potential for abuse, doncha think some news organization should ask these questions?

Matt: I was responding to Jeremy who seems to think that there have been some enormous tax cuts under Obama. Crappy little checks sent out by any administration are not "tax breaks" You go on to say "I also know Obama changed the Pub. 15 Federal deduction for those making less than 100k or so - and I'm sure you spent that." Actually I didn't spend it since I didn't get it because I make considerably more than 100K as I hope you do also. Finally, you aver that "you should know Obama has proposed 39.6%, which is lower than the avg. it was under Reagan" This is a non sequitur of some sort but certainly gibberish since you seem a top rate with an average which, of course, is not possible.

Step back and look at the big picture. Obama is preaching to the choir, his base, all the while thinking that enough voters believe that someone can make too much money.

Some people believe that because they do not have a large descresionary income no one else should be so entitled. Envy is an ugly emotion.

Gores Pied-a-terre in the hills was purchased at a modest price for the area. A small lot and the lack of a white water view equals a modest abode. If you want ocean front plan on spending at least $20,000,000. With nine bathrooms he probably has bowel problems or Tipper plans to entertain alot.

If Gore was preaching that everyone should build and work to have what he has I doubt that many would care at all that he owns several nice homes or that endangered sea bass (legally harvested) were served at his kid's wedding.

No one cared much that McCain, through his wife, has multiple spacious homes, even though it was brought up as an attack on him (was it the Obama campaign that was highlighting that?) because McCain, unlike Gore, hasn't been scolding the rest of us to make do with less in order to save the planet.

I'm with those who think the only appropriate response to this latest idiocy requires curse words.

Fuck you, Barack Obama. Fuck you and damn you to hell. Whatever remaining shreds of respect I had for you have blown away like a fart in a hurricane. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you worthless, un-American leech.

@matt re: "we won't have oil forever".. maybe you are too young to remember, but we were told that, without a doubt, we would be completely out of oil before the end of the 1970's. guess all that stuff being pumped out of the ground for the last 40 years has been gravy..or maybe you just can't always believe the hype.